Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

This image is in the public domain and may be used freely. If publishing in print, electronically, or on a website, please cite the item using the citation button.

File Name

index.cpd

▼

Item Description

Title

Sports

Format (IMT)

image/jpeg

File Name

yearb_1988_152.jpg

Transcript

2. A student service fee for Handicapped
Services, Veterans' Services, Dean of Students, Learning Support, Career Planning
and Placement, Counseling and Testing,
Health Care Center, etc.
3. An athletic fee.
The final analysis is that athletics got its
money from student service fee money that was
freed up by shifting money around from CTS,
Career Planning and Placement, Handicapped
and Veterans Services. The administrators took
state funding from these services and used the
money for athletics and salary increases for
faculty, thus making the aforementioned services totally dependent on Student Service Fees
and straining the Student Service Fee Budget.
To replenish this money the administrators
used SSFPAC to approve the $15 UC Fee,
which would free up $800,000 to $900,000.
— Jonathan Jereb
A campus survey
According to a survey conducted by the
Student Service Fee Planning and Allocation
Committee for their Budget Recommendations for fiscal Year 1989 to determine students' opinions regarding a University Center Fee:
1. A majority of students would prefer a designated fee structure (i.e. Health Center
Fee, UC Fee, Athletic Fee, Student Activities Fee) as opposed to a general fee.
2. An overwhelming minority of students
have said that they could not support a UC
fee.
3. The top five programs in terms of importance for students on our campus are
(starting with the most important):
— Career Planning and Placement
— Health Center
— Handicapped Student Services
— University Center
— Campus Activities
4. The bottom five programs in terms of importance to students are (starting with the
least important)
— Athletics
— Spirit Board
— Dean of Campus Life
— Council of Ethnic Organizations
— Intramurals
The committee, under the direction of committee member Lenny Cervantes, and with
the help of the Assistant Vice-President for
Student Affairs, Mark Bookman, concluded
"the survey clearly shows that Dr. Van
Horn's budget proposals are clearly out of
step with needs of the students. And since the
Student Service Fee is meant to provide services and programs to serve the needs of students, and not the needs of any one department, the committee has no alternative
than to provide a budget which reflects those
student needs."
Gvns ovcr BoTreR
JMHfot*^
\g%*#**""[
:%
9 -to hijrttR &aucatio*/| ^
foa A Good ^<*»e
on -wv
In a report presented to President Richard L. Van Horn, on April 8, 1988,
the Student Service Fee Planning and Allocation Committee stated that its
investigation revealed that the Department of Athletics was running an annual
deficit of $4 million, and that the total subsidy to athletics over a 10 year period
was in excess of $40 million.
"Based on the financial information provided to the committee by the
Athletic Department and the Budget Office," said the report, "it seems that
the University has subsidized, through the fee and transfers, the (athletic)
program to the tune of $4 million dollars per year. In a decade, that means
more than a $40 million dollar subsidy. The committee does not believe that
anyone can suggest that gifts and donations from athletic supporters come
anywhere near to this figure. Our review also suggests that the real cost of the
athletic program is far greater than that reflected in the budget. The budget
fails to include the costs of field maintenance, lights, utilities, and other similar
support costs."
It was reported previously (The Houston Post, April 2), that for the fiscal
year 1989, the Athletic Department requested an annual budget of $3.5 million.
The Department said it can raise $1.5 million and wanted a $2 million Student
Service Fee subsidy. The budget committee observed, however, that the
Department had greatly overrated its fundraising ability, and that even a
$300,000 figure would be too optimistic.
Despite a misleading initial budget estimate, and the Athletic Department's
failure to account for the accured $40 million deficit, the budget committee had
nevertheless proposed a $1.6+ million Student Service Fee subsidy to athletics.
The newly proposed budget figure had also uncovered some $800,000+ in the
so-called "transfer," and a previously unreported departmental "revenue" of
$4.2 million. The total budget for the Department of Athletics that the
committee endorsed, oddly enough, was no less than $6.7 million, or $3.2
million higher than the initial request.
The former football coach Bill Yeoman, who was forced to resign following
one of the Athletic Department's public scandals three years ago, was then
appointed a fundraiser at $103,000 a year. In three years that he's been on the
job, he could not raise more than $30,000. The net drain on the budget just for
ex-coach Yeoman — $279,000.
It was reported that no more than 6 percent of the students actually attend
athletic events.
— Fabian Vaksman
Sports 175